Non existent enemy targets

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the contracts negotiated can be renegotiated in 2016 without unreasonable cost by a future Government who may be more enlightened and take the view that Trident is little more than an impractical vanity and virility symbol?

Mr Hammond: Of course I completely reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The investment at the Rolls-Royce plant is an 11-year programme, so the money will be spent over 11 years. In being prepared to undertake this major programme, Rolls-Royce will require a commitment from the Government—its customer—and we will make that commitment at the level at which we have to do so to protect the UK’s sovereign capability.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):

We lost 179 of our brave soldiers in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have lost 419 soldiers protecting the United Kingdom from a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat. Are we to expose more British lives to defend ourselves from non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons?

Mr Hague:

The hon. Gentleman must not fall victim to Iranian propaganda about that, and of course we could also differ about some of the premises of his question, including the terrorist threats that have emanated from Afghanistan. I hope he will support the fact that the whole of our effort is going into finding a peaceful diplomatic solution. That is what the twin-track approach of sanctions and negotiations is about. One hundred per cent of our effort is dedicated to a diplomatic solution to the problem.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):

As a greater number of American veterans of the Afghan war commit suicide than die in combat, and as uncounted thousands of our own troops return, broken in body and mind, should we not follow the example of Canada, Holland, France and Australia and bring our troops home at an earlier date than planned?

Mr Hague:

It is also important to remember the immense achievements of our troops in Afghanistan, who have helped to bring stability to areas of Afghanistan that would not otherwise have known it, and who have done so much to reduce the terrorism threat to this country and many others, and it is very important for that job to be completed, as we intend it to be, by the end of 2014. It is important to remember the achievements of our troops, and not just the problems that they encounter.

Comments

[Paul Flynn]

Many thanks 'A" and "BB". That's greatly encouraging. Recess looms but little chance of a deabte on Aghanistan until, at least, September. So the dying continues.

[BB]

Dear Paul
I love your questions to Messrs Hammond and Hague.
Trouble is that they recite the same old clichés time and time again.
I seem to remember that Blair and the oddly dysfunctional Defence Secretary whose name escapes me did the same thing.
The nuclear thing is about as plausible as the elephant traps at Bexhill-on-Sea – as a child I asked my father if he had seen any elephants in Bexhill-on-Sea, and he replied that No, he hadn’t, but it just showed how effective the traps were.
Regards
BB

[A]

Mr Hague: 'It is also important to remember the immense achievements of our troops in Afghanistan, who have helped to bring stability to areas of Afghanistan that would not otherwise have known it'

This 'immense achievement' doesn't take into account the fact that there was no war at all before NATO arrived. It is a strange comment for Hague to make (dishonest or myopic? certainly untrustworthy) given the report on Monday from the UN that Afghanistan is the top producer of refugees in the world. In view of the facts I don't have a great deal of respect for Hague.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m88955&hd=&size=1&l=e

Its business as usual from the latest foreign secretary. A betrayal of our armed forces and a betrayal of the overwhelming majority of the country who want the war finished. We are effectively being held to ransom by those whose interest it is to profit from a continued war and occupation.

Its good we have somebody to call these politicians to account in yourself, Paul.

Hague: 'it is very important for that job to be completed, as we intend it to be, by the end of 2014.'

I think the proponents of this war need to ask themselves where they will be in one year, nevermind two. The Taliban control most of the country whilst NATO are practically limited to their bases. I expect the dwindling support from the Afghan populace will only grow smaller over the next year.

The most recent in a long line of 'rogue' Afghan police and soldiers to kill NATO troops:

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/06/18/afghan-police-kill-nato-soldier-in-rogue-shooting-attack/

I wonder what are the true hidden intentions of the USA and NATO in carrying on this war indefinately. There are too many blatant lies for me to give any credence to what these politicians actually say. They ignore completely the reality of war (like Hague did) and hide behind the 'immense achievements' of the army to shoot down anyone who dares criticise them.

I do believe your arguments can stand up in any debate with the likes of Hague, Paul. Eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) they will be persuaded and come to understand that they were wrong.

Ad